This week crown court judge Mary Jane Mowat commented in aninterview given on her retirement as a circuit judge that rape conviction rates would never improve until women stopped drinking so much that they struggle to remember details of their assault. "It is an inevitable fact of it being one person's word against another and the burden of proof being that you have to be sure before you convict. I will also say and I will be pilloried for saying so, but the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk." This is a familiar situation, however this is not a case of a person saying women should not drink/wear provocative clothing if they want to avoid rape, but that if they do become the victim of an assault then, as in most criminal cases, a clear memory would work in their favour. Does that make Mowat's comments ok?

Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre service manager Natalie Brook said the comments are: "misguided and dangerous", Mowat expanded on her point: "I'm not saying it's right to rape a drunken woman, I'm not saying for a moment that it's allowable to take advantage of a drunken woman." What Mowat is, perhaps unintentionally, saying is that there is a right way to get raped. To be drunk is to fall into the trap of the virgin/whore dichotomy.

We know that trauma tends not to lead to great recall and rare is the rape survivor who asks their rapist to pause for a quick Instagram, #nofilter. So the survivor is already at a huge disadvantage, to add to the case an attitude of 'silly girl' towards her if she is female is unfair.

We don't say to men that they should avoid drinking alcohol or taking drugs because it might make them violent, lose their self control or cause their moral boundaries to blur (you know, like the song).

It seems we just don't expect too much self control of men, and it's pathetic. No it's worse than pathetic, it's dangerous. We are putting women in a constant mothering role in which we have to police men's behaviour towards us and be the ones to say "no, that's naughty" and I'm sick of it.

We ask the victim 'we did you let him do that?' instead of asking the rapist 'why did you do that?'

It's why we so often mistakenly put the spotlight on the victim and not the perpetrator. We ask the victim 'we did you let him do that?' instead of asking the rapist 'why did you do that?'

Of course there are many reasons as to why there probably won't be any magazine or newspaper features featuring a photo of a man looking super sad at the camera next to a big quote headline "Why I raped a woman too drunk to give consent". It's possibly more likely that we will see feature with a picture of a man staring resolutely at the camera next to the headline "Yes she was drunk, but I'm no rapist". In the article he would cite all the support he has received from friends, family and total strangers who have 'been in a similar situation'. It would end with a stern warning to women to moderate their drinking.

It is vital that we shift the conversation from how a person can prevent being raped and move on to asking why some people rape. Worse, why we make excuses for them, because URGES. It's not about increasing conviction rates, it's about reducing violence against women and girls. How do we do that? Not by telling them to stay home or stop at one white wine spritzer, but telling men to seek clear consent.